forbes.com
New Phishing Campaign Exploits "@ Gap" in URLs to Steal Microsoft 365 Credentials
Check Point researchers discovered a new phishing campaign exploiting the "@ gap" in URLs to steal Microsoft 365 credentials, sending over 200,000 emails targeting a wide range of organizations and individuals, with 75% aimed at US users.
- How are attackers exploiting the "@ gap" in URLs to successfully disguise malicious links in phishing emails?
- The "@ gap" phishing campaign uses sophisticated URL manipulation to obfuscate malicious links. The attackers leverage the fact that most websites ignore the "userinfo" field in URLs, inserting deceptive text before the "@" symbol. This leads users to a deceptive login page designed to mimic Microsoft 365, often including a CAPTCHA for added legitimacy.
- What is the immediate impact of the newly discovered "@ gap" phishing campaign targeting Microsoft 365 users?
- A new phishing campaign exploiting the "@ gap" in URLs to steal Microsoft 365 credentials has been confirmed by Check Point researchers. Over 200,000 emails targeting US, EMEA, and Canadian organizations and individuals have been sent, with 75% aimed at US targets. Attackers insert misleading information before the "@" symbol in URLs to disguise malicious links, leading victims to a realistic Microsoft 365 phishing page.
- What are the long-term implications of this "@ gap" exploitation technique for Microsoft 365 security and the broader phishing landscape?
- This campaign highlights the ongoing evolution of phishing techniques, emphasizing the need for advanced email security solutions. The use of CAPTCHAs in phishing attacks demonstrates the increasing sophistication of these attacks and the importance of user awareness training. Future phishing attacks may exploit other less-scrutinized parts of URLs or leverage similar obfuscation methods.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the @ gap phishing campaign as a significant and sophisticated threat. The use of phrases like "sophisticated URL manipulation techniques" and descriptions of meticulously crafted phishing pages emphasizes the threat level and complexity. While this is factually accurate, the overall tone might inadvertently heighten public fear disproportionately compared to the actual risk to average users. The focus on a particular campaign may overshadow other cybersecurity risks.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and informative. However, terms like "flood of security warnings" and "meticulously crafted" might subtly amplify the sense of threat. While not overtly biased, using less emotionally charged language could improve neutrality. For example, instead of "flood", 'a significant number' could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the @ gap phishing campaign but omits discussion of other prevalent phishing techniques or broader social engineering threats. While focusing on a specific campaign is understandable, excluding other relevant threats might give a skewed view of the overall online security landscape. The lack of discussion on user education beyond caution about links could also be considered an omission.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a phishing campaign targeting Microsoft 365 users, disproportionately affecting individuals and organizations with less robust cybersecurity infrastructure. This can exacerbate existing digital inequalities, as those with fewer resources are more vulnerable to such attacks, potentially leading to financial losses and data breaches.